The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1887-07-20
WHY THEY WITHDREW.
TIE SECESSION FROM TIE SOUTH
CAROLINA DIOCESAN CONVENTION.


CAROLINA DIOCESAN CONVENTION.
Review of the Causes of Difference that
Led to Their withdrawal--The Question
of Admitting Colored Delegates to the
Convention.
CHARLESTON, S. c., July 12.-The
committee appointed by the clerical and
lay delegates who withdrew from the
Diocesan Episcopal Convention in
Charleston last May have completed their
statement of the causes which led to
withdrawal. 1t is signed by ex-Secretary
G. G.. Memminger, Edward McCrady,
Jr., w. st. j. Jervey, w. G. Benet, G.
Il. r. Drayton, and will make a pamph-
let Of about sixty pages. The committee
begin by sketching the history of the
dividing questions during the last twelve
years, and contend that it shows that the
position of the lay delegates with regard
to the admission of colored clergymen to
the diocesan conventions differs from
that of many Of the clergy, not in prin-
ciple, but in eXpediency. In 1885, the
question took the shape of an assertion
of the right of all the clergymen on the
right of all the clergymen on the bishops
list to seats in the convention independ.
ent OF the action of that body and by
virtue of the clergyman's Office. The
subject was avoided the next year, but
came up in the convention last May, not
not as matter of principle only, but as
lnNnlVlnO Of 70 olp
of colored clergymen to the church
councils. The bishop having ruled-not-
wlthstanding the refusal Of the copven-
ton to confirm the report of the COM
mlttee on the clergy list-that the con-
ventlon was duly organized FOR business,
and having ignored the refusal of the
convention to sustain his ruling, dissi-
dents had no choice but to submit, pro-
test, resort to parliamentary expedients,
or withdraw with dignity. They accord
ingly withdrew from the convention.
1t is recognized by the committee,
however, that the point to be determ-
med is whether the admission of colored
clergymen to the convention was con-
tcmplated in the constitution of the
church. They contend that it was not,
and that this ''ls the first attempt in the
history OF the church TO make the church
other than national church-that is a
church OF race" They believe the seat
ing colorcd clergymen in the convention
to be not only unconstitutional, but dan
gcrous, and IN this relation recall the
resolution Of MIR. Prentiss in 1875, as
sorting the right of exclusion. The res
olutlOns of the standing committee on
the Saltus case, in 1876, recognizing the
differences of the races brought together
III the diocese, and the report Of the
oeWanec Conference, in favor of mis-
Slonary organization, because of the
peculiarly of the relations between the
two races.
1t is argued that there is no danger.
whatever, to any of the social barriers
between the ral rs, if the colorcd people
bc taken into the councils and the
churches as equals of the whites, but the
committee are confident that the actual
and practical result would be to force
negro social equality upon the people.
The duty and responsibility of the
church in the Southell States, in regard
to colorcd people, is fully recognized,
but there Is no call "to take them into
our councils"
In conclusion the committee give their
reasons for holding that there was no
legal convention in 1887. They claim
that the election of the standing com
mIttcc, and the attempted alteration in
the constitution were 'void and of no
effect, even had the legality of the
bishops ruling not otherwise vitiated it's
proceedings"
The Importance Of congregations rep
resented by the dissidents, who with
drew from the convention, is shown in
an unmistakabic way. Those who with
drew represented more than half of alb
persons connected with the church, and
more than half of all communicates.
ILcy represented, also, parishes which
pay nearly two-thirds OF the conventions
expenses; more than two-thirds of the,
bishops fund, and nearly two-thirds Of
the contributions to missions. The com
mlttec say, that III Withdrawing from the
convention, they did not withdraw from
the church. 1t is for the laity to de-
termlnc what their future course shall
be. They will not impair their connec
tlon with the church by withdrawing
from union with the convention. Yhey
can, II they choose, send deputies with
instructions to abandon the position
which has been taken, and in admittino,
the colored element to the church conn
clls ''brave the dangers" from which the
dissldents shrink. But, if the laity de-
sire that the right to pass upon the
clergy list shall be abandoned, they must
choose to represent them other deputies
than those who withdrew from the con-
vention of 1887.